how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
1054 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
rschus
join:2006-06-18
Beaverton, OR | reply to mkammer
Re: [FiOS] No Static IP's available for home users I am in the Portland, OR metro area and have a static IP for the wife's business. Trust me go with Comcast.
I had FIOS with Verizon then Frontier took them over. About that time we located the the server at the house. They said that I couldn't, OK we can, you will loose this, Oh we can't and you have the TV on a residential account. They finally got it figured out. And with a few minor things it has been OK.
On March 14 I canceled the TV side of things. Mind you that the FIOS and the TV are on two separate accounts. The wife and I both said "wonder how long till they screw up the FIOS." This morning I wake up and got the answer. Yep everything down.
To Frontiers credit it only took about an hour of dealing with the script kiddies, three transfers, two denials that canceling one account wouldn't effect the other, for someone to figure it out. Then it is "oh it is because of the other account..." | | |
|
 HankSearching for a new FrontierPremium
join:2002-05-21
Burlington, WV
kudos:1
4 edits | reply to mkammer
I reviewed my neighbors bill with her this evening. Her first DSL does indeed have static IP. The first line billed at the standard $39.95 HSI Max rate with phone service at the basic rate and a second connect at $15.99 rate that has a dnyamic IP address. It is not business class. I remember when the line was installed she had to go through the district manager to get it approved. I know for sure that it is a static address because I have worked on the router that is connected to this circuit. Since I did not order the line for her I do not know if Frontier makes a special exception for alarm circuit.
I am not trying to add to the controversy of this discussion I am just stating what I know and have learned about this particular installation. Nor am I stating that Frontier as a whole makes exceptions in general for alarm circuits. | |
gozerPremium
join:2010-08-09
Rochester, NY | I have a few questions about what your saying. at first you said it was the second connect that had a static now its the main line. You said the router has a set static IP what router did you see this on and what line is the alarm system on? Can you give us a short description of how everything is setup for both lans start at the dsl line coming in. | |
 Ben JPremium
join:2011-09-16
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:3 | reply to Hank
said by Hank:I remember when the line was installed she had to go through the district manager to get it approved. [...] Nor am I stating that Frontier as a whole makes exceptions in general for alarm circuits. Frontier uses what we call the "Local Engagement Model". This means the General Managers for a market have great leeway for making exceptions to product, billing, and engineering rules. Like the Matrix movie quote, your GM is Neo... "Some of the rules can be bent, others can be broken." This is also a double-edged sword. For example, it can be used for good in getting a customer a static IP that they couldn't normally get based on the product rules, or it can be abused (e.g., a GM approves selling another 100 subs behind an already congested link in violation of the engineering guidelines). It drives guys like me in centralized engineering nuts sometimes, but it is what it is.
If you want something that you can't get from a CSR, or have a problem you can't get resolved, talk to your GM. That's what they are there for. If the GM says "yes", it will get done. If the GM says "no", there is little anyone else can do for you, as they will most likely default to the BAU policy.
For FiOS, static IPs are very difficult to get in residential settings because of the repeated problems we've had with people running servers out of their house. The most effective deterrent we have is restricting static IPs to business accounts. You'd be surprised at how well that works. Home users are (often grudgingly) ok using DDNS, while most people looking to run server farms are not. Yes, we lose some business because of that. But at some point the pros/cons were weighed, and the decision was made to not provide it.
That said, the provisioning profiles for static IPs in FiOS with TV exist, but (and one of the CSRs who lurk here can probably comment on this) I do not believe the product code exists to order it on a residential package. Your GM, if you can convince him/her, would have to involve the FSC Tier 2 team to push a static profile behind the scenes, and they really don't like doing that.
--
Transparency Disclosure and Disclaimer: I am a Frontier employee posting in my own personal capacity. The opinions and positions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of Frontier. | |
HankSearching for a new FrontierPremium
join:2002-05-21
Burlington, WV
kudos:1
1 edit | Ben J - Thank you. I can fully understand where it could get a bit out of hand. Having been in similar situations it most definitely can cause confusion when the folks running the network are not made aware of exceptions that have been granted. | |
mark04
join:2013-03-21
Lynnwood, WA | reply to Ben J
Ben,
Thanks for the inside view. I am currently struggling with choice of ISP after being with Comcast for eight years. In my neighborhood there is no DSL option, only the Comcast/Frontier duopoly. I will contact my Frontier GM to ask about a static IP, but am not holding my breath. I'm willing to pay a substantial premium for this--even $20 or $30, but not $100.
I have stuck with Comcast on a dynamic IP because they were willing to look the other way while I ran my own services (ssh, web, incoming mail, and secure IMAP). I'm a low bandwidth user who would be OK with old-fashioned 1.5M/768k DSL without port blocks, but the at-home options for tech-savvy people like me have been dwindling over time. Last month, Comcast finally started blocking port 25 inbound, with no technical justification. Trying to argue these things has become hopeless: It's not that you can't make a well reasoned argument; it's that you can't even find someone who understands networking well enough to agree or disagree with you on an informed basis. (This is often the case even in forums like this one.)
Back when the govt forced telcos to open up DSL to competitive ISPs, they [unwittingly?] guaranteed that users like me would be able to find a techie-friendly ISP with static IPs at reasonable prices. But in this new world dominated by cable and fiber, we're screwed, and Comcast et al. are well on their way to remaking the Internet in their own image. No surprise, it looks a lot like TV.
This is what a static IP is really about: The freedom to do whatever you please with your connection, as long as it's (a) legal, and (b) not consuming inordinate bandwidth. (DDNS is no solution as long as there is port blocking.) Why shouldn't this be available to residential accounts?
I'm suspicious of the claim that static-IP users are bandwidth hogs. Comcast/Frontier seem fine with bittorrent and streaming video; if anything, I bet the average business customer is consuming less, not more, bandwidth than the average teenager at home. Either caps or a metered usage model would remove this fig leaf, but good luck selling that to the 99%...
The great irony is that I would make a supremely valuable customer: below-average bandwidth use and never call tech support!
Sorry for the rant.
Mark | |
Ben JPremium
join:2011-09-16
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:3 | said by mark04:I'm a low bandwidth user who would be OK with old-fashioned 1.5M/768k DSL without port blocks, but the at-home options for tech-savvy people like me have been dwindling over time. I'll agree with you there. As always-on broadband became the de facto standard for Internet access, and the masses swarmed in, the ISPs had to lower the bar. Handling thousands of calls trying to explain to the average person that their PC was scanning/infecting random hosts due to a worm turned out to be much worse than simply answering a few scattered questions on why a user can't "map a drive from work".
Last month, Comcast finally started blocking port 25 inbound, with no technical justification.
In most of Frontier's DSL markets, you can call into support and they can tweak your profile to open port 25 again. In FiOS, there is no residential option for this, you must be a business account with a static IP. The static IP profile in FiOS does not filter any ports. Note that in the residential/dynamic profile for FiOS, port 25 is the ONLY port we still filter at the BNG. All others can be unfiltered through configuration in the router or by using your own (unsupported) router.
Trying to argue these things has become hopeless: It's not that you can't make a well reasoned argument; it's that you can't even find someone who understands networking well enough to agree or disagree with you on an informed basis. (This is often the case even in forums like this one.) 
I can't guarantee that you'll like or agree with our reasoning, and I obviously can't answer questions which would disclose proprietary information (or are so controversial that they get me posted on the front page of DSLR and fired), but you're welcome to PM me with any questions you have. I don't spend a whole lot of time in these forums, but I will try to get back with you as soon as I can.
Back when the govt forced telcos to open up DSL to competitive ISPs, they [unwittingly?] guaranteed that users like me would be able to find a techie-friendly ISP with static IPs at reasonable prices. But in this new world dominated by cable and fiber, we're screwed, and Comcast et al. are well on their way to remaking the Internet in their own image. No surprise, it looks a lot like TV.
This is what a static IP is really about: The freedom to do whatever you please with your connection, as long as it's (a) legal, and (b) not consuming inordinate bandwidth. (DDNS is no solution as long as there is port blocking.) Why shouldn't this be available to residential accounts?
If the services aren't available, its because they generally aren't more profitable than another equivalent offer. Note that "profitable" doesn't mean "no demand for it". Profitable means revenue (those who pay for the service) minus the expenses to provide the service. Providing that level of service to the tech savvy minority (even if there is demand), is more expensive because of the non tech-savvy majority bog the provider down with extra expenses. The business is not as profitable as just selling to the masses.
Despite what many of us technical folks think, it's often hard to convince others that the goodwill/prestige associated with offering those services drives more revenue to offset those expenses. We (as techies) pick X product or company because we think it's cool and works great for us or offers the top of the line new whiz-bang gizmo/speed/whatever. And then we brag about it on forums/blogs, and tell our non-technical friends how cool it is, and based on our word, all these non-technical people will also buy X or buy from that company (even if they don't need it, or maybe they buy a lesser package, or they won't use any of those advanced features). Woohoo! Well, not so fast. It's often a tough business case to prove, and an ever tougher business case to sell to Marketing or Management who want to see hard numbers. Having gone from being a highly-opinionated tech-savvy Internet home user in the 90s to working my way up to a position where I regularly converse with and advise the non-technical business side of a large ISP, I can definitely say it's opened my eyes on a lot. The view from the ISP's business side is a much different (and often humbling) perspective. As a customer, you just want what you want. The process of delivering that want to a customer for a profit is a whole other world.
And I think that's also a side effect of capitalism and the free market. Profit never wants to work backwards. If I'm management and my margin is $1 today, I'm not going to accept a margin of $.90 tomorrow. I'm going to find a way to keep it $1, otherwise my stock will take a beating on the street, investors get upset, and I get fired and replaced by someone who *will* find a way to keep that $1 margin. As broadband begins to inch closer to being a "commodity" instead of a "specialty", the providers will seek ways to ensure the margin/profitability doesn't fall. They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders/investors/owners to do so. As such, they would rather "die fighting" so to speak than become a dumb pipe.
I'm suspicious of the claim that static-IP users are bandwidth hogs. Comcast/Frontier seem fine with bittorrent and streaming video; if anything, I bet the average business customer is consuming less, not more, bandwidth than the average teenager at home.
This is also one of the reasons you're seeing the disappearance of symmetrical packages from the residential tier. It gets hairy to maintain stable over-subscription ratios and predictive formulas with such high upstream profiles. The backend management systems simply don't exist to let us effectively distribute and manage those packages, so instead it's controlled by a simpler (though maybe less effective) business policy. There's added costs (or lowered profitability) in there, and so those get swept into packages for customers who are more likely to pay a larger premium for them.
Either caps or a metered usage model would remove this fig leaf, but good luck selling that to the 99%...
The great irony is that I would make a supremely valuable customer: below-average bandwidth use and never call tech support!
Not at all. Feel free to PM me anytime. I'm always open to polite and intelligent discourse.
--Ben (Network Architect, FiOS)
--
Transparency Disclosure and Disclaimer: I am a Frontier employee posting in my own personal capacity. The opinions and positions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of Frontier. | |
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | reply to Ben J
said by Ben J:For FiOS, static IPs are very difficult to get in residential settings because of the repeated problems we've had with people running servers out of their house. The most effective deterrent we have is restricting static IPs to business accounts. You'd be surprised at how well that works. Home users are (often grudgingly) ok using DDNS, while most people looking to run server farms are not. Yes, we lose some business because of that. But at some point the pros/cons were weighed, and the decision was made to not provide it. So in otherwords, it really has nothing to do with a residential setting vs business. It's about being able to control the money. If Frontier didn't want a residential subscriber to saturate a line, they wouldn't allow that location to then subscribe to business service and get static IPs. But since they pay more, their "repeated problems" disappear. Not that there is anything wrong from a capitalistic standpoint with such a practice. But pointing that out.
I'd also like to point out that the level of grief a subscriber (business or residential) is not dictated by what type of subscriber. Very few things require a static IP. Come to think of it the only thing I've ever required one for was for a mail server and the reverse DNS. There are many things that having a static IP is beneficial, but not required. Having a stream or session break, or a website not be accessible while a DNS update propagated throughout is a hassle, but one that doesn't happen very often with most dynamic addresses. Even with the dynamic addressing, the subscriber can easily run a torrent, ftp, or whatever file trading, be a member of a botnet or find other machines to join into one, or pretty much whatever other nefarious activities it wants. | |
Ben JPremium
join:2011-09-16
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:3 | said by cdru:So in otherwords, it really has nothing to do with a residential setting vs business. It's about being able to control the money. If Frontier didn't want a residential subscriber to saturate a line, they wouldn't allow that location to then subscribe to business service and get static IPs. But since they pay more, their "repeated problems" disappear. Not that there is anything wrong from a capitalistic standpoint with such a practice. But pointing that out. Oh, I'm sure that was definitely a factor as well. The concept of premium brand dilution definitely sits out there, whether you're talking Internet access or some other industry. If you can get all the features of a premium product on a lesser product, it's seen as less of a "premium", and loses some of its value. Same reason some of the features you can get on an Audi aren't available on a Jetta or Passat, in spite of it being the same basic car/components/etc. You know full well that VW has obvious technical ability to add them and that it would only be a subset of the full engineering costs to implement because it's such a similar platform... Yet they still won't do it. Engineering and cost considerations are always just one side of any coin in the business world.
To your latter point, business accounts, as a premium product, get premium service. If you're sucking down terabytes of data a month and complaining of problems (or causing complaints of problems), I would expect you might get a much different response as a business sub paying a large premium than as a residential sub who isn't. Capitalism at its finest, and as regular consumers, sometimes that just sucks for us.
--
Transparency Disclosure and Disclaimer: I am a Frontier employee posting in my own personal capacity. The opinions and positions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of Frontier. | |
|
